Human Dignity and Bioethics

88 |Daniel C. Dennett
success, and makes no appeal to authority beyond the reasoning ability
of each individual in the conversation. It has been fashionable
in some academic groves in recent years to downplay the power of
such methods, insisting that all conversations—however biased or
illogical—are on a par, but fortunately that fad is going extinct, and
people are resuming their appreciation of the truly thrilling power
of open-ended rational questioning. If you “don’t get it” all you have
to do is ask, persistently and politely, for an explanation of the baffling
points. This may sometimes be met with impatience and rudeness,
but everyone knows that, officially, it is the responsibility of
the scientific researcher to explain and defend every last claim. That
contrasts sharply with the celebration of faith and mystery found in
most religions, and this is what simply disqualifies them from playing
the leading role in the peaceful, mutually respectful explorations we
are now engaging in. The sacred texts of the world’s religions may be
used as rich sources of ideas, but brandishing them as above criticism
and then celebrating the “faith” with which one excuses oneself from
defending them is an abuse of religious freedom.
Notes
1
From my essay in this volume, p. 58.
2
From Kraynak’s essay in this volume, p. 70.
3
From Kraynak’s essay, p. 67.
4
From Kraynak’s essay, p. 70.
5
From my essay, p. 45.
6
From Kraynak’s essay, p. 68.
7
From Kraynak’s essay, p. 75.